Re: [PATCH v3 03/11] iommufd: Introduce IOMMUFD_OBJ_VIOMMU and its related struct

[Zhangfei Gao]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 23:46, Nicolin Chen <nicolinc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2024 at 03:58:55PM +0800, Zhangfei Gao wrote:
>
> > > > > > +struct iommufd_object *iommufd_object_alloc_elm(struct iommufd_ctx *ictx,
> > > > > > +                                               size_t size,
> > > > > > +                                               enum iommufd_object_type type)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +       struct iommufd_object *obj;
> > > > > > +       int rc;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +       obj = kzalloc(size, GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT);
> > > > > > +       if (!obj)
> > > > > > +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > > > > +       obj->type = type;
> > > > > > +       /* Starts out bias'd by 1 until it is removed from the xarray */
> > > > > > +       refcount_set(&obj->shortterm_users, 1);
> > > > > > +       refcount_set(&obj->users, 1);
> > > > >
> > > > > here set refcont 1
> > > > >
> > > > > iommufd_device_bind -> iommufd_object_alloc(ictx, idev,
> > > > > IOMMUFD_OBJ_DEVICE): refcont -> 1
> > > > > refcount_inc(&idev->obj.users); refcount -> 2
> > > > > will cause iommufd_device_unbind fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > May remove refcount_inc(&idev->obj.users) in iommufd_device_bind
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, why would it fail? Or is it failing on your system?
> > >
> > > Not sure, still in check, it may only be on my platform.
> > >
> > > it hit
> > > iommufd_object_remove:
> > > if (WARN_ON(obj != to_destroy))
> > >
> > > iommufd_device_bind refcount=2
> > > iommufd_device_attach refcount=3
> > > //still not sure which operation inc the count?
> > > iommufd_device_detach refcount=4
> > >
> >
> > Have a question,
> > when should iommufd_vdevice_destroy be called, before or after
> > iommufd_device_unbind.
>
> Before.
>
> > Now iommufd_vdevice_destroy (ref--) is after unbind, hits the if
> > (!refcount_dec_if_one(&obj->users)) check.
>
> Hmm, where do we have an iommufd_vdevice_destroy after unbind?

Looks like it is called by close fd?
[ 2480.909319]  iommufd_vdevice_destroy+0xdc/0x168
[ 2480.909324]  iommufd_fops_release+0xa4/0x140
[ 2480.909328]  __fput+0xd0/0x2e0
[ 2480.909331]  ____fput+0x1c/0x30
[ 2480.909333]  task_work_run+0x78/0xe0
[ 2480.909337]  do_exit+0x2fc/0xa50
[ 2480.909340]  do_group_exit+0x3c/0xa0
[ 2480.909344]  get_signal+0x96c/0x978
[ 2480.909346]  do_signal+0x94/0x3a8
[ 2480.909348]  do_notify_resume+0x100/0x190

>
> > iommufd_device_bind
> > iommufd_device_attach
> > iommufd_vdevice_alloc_ioctl
> >
> > iommufd_device_detach
> > iommufd_device_unbind // refcount check fail
> > iommufd_vdevice_destroy ref--
>
> Things should be symmetric. As you suspected, vdevice should be
> destroyed before iommufd_device_detach.

I am trying based on your for_iommufd_viommu_p2-v3 branch, do you have
this issue?
In checking whether close fd before unbind?

>
> A vdev is an object on top of a vIOMMU obj and an idev obj, so
> it takes a refcount from each of them. That's why idev couldn't
> unbind.

Thanks

>
> Thanks
> Nicolin